2. Agenda review, and AOB

Agenda item #10 has wrong URL it should be:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0139.html
AOB:
- Nov F2F
- Poll taken to see who can make it (crisis and budget constraints
might mean people can't/don't want to travel)
- 23 responded saying they plan to attend
- Maybe do a video conference at the F2F for the people who can't
travel. However, seating in the video facility at the F2F location
is for only 25 people (hence the poll).
- Chris Ferris:
- No network connectivity at the F2F
- Maybe an analog line will be there
- Need to start the registration process
- Paul Cotton:
- Just did a F2F - Schema and Query
- Ran a telecon for the entire time
- One presentation on video w/person a telecon
- Did have some analog lines
David: Let's find out what are all the possible connectivity options.
Noah: What are the quorum rules?
David: No rules
Noah: Just want to make sure we have enough people to make it worthwhile.
David: As in last F2F, did business and reported back to WG leaving
open the option, at the Chair's discretion, of reopening an issue.
- Paul Cotton - agent item #7
Paul Cotton: Doesn't believe David Orchard's proposal accurately
describes the XML Core WG's position, and has not had time to study it closely.
Gudge:Clarification: DavidO's proposal is "yes xml:base" which is a change from previous (Noah's) proposal which is "no xml:base"
Noah: Actually not my proposal which was a write-up of PaulC's. The original proposal concerned the requirement that SOAP processors be forced to understand XMLBase.
PaulC: Prefers original proposal over DavidO's. Can't see any reason for changing actor URIs to relative URIs. The solution isn't modular enough. Wants to defer agenda item until next week.
David: OK. Item postponed w/approval of WG.

3. Minutes from 3 Oct telcon approved without dissent.

4. Review action items.

- Paul Cotton: not yet
- Paul Cotton: void null/void from query - not yet
- Action taken to write it up in time for the next telecon
- TBTF: ongoing
- John Ibbotson: done
- Chris Ferris:
- Sent issue 12 resolution text
- Larry unhappy with this resolution
- Resolution is pending
- David/Chris will discuss off-line how to proceed
- Marc Hadley:
- Write up resolution of issue #4
- More talks with Larry - agreed to open a new issue.
- Hugo issue 145 opened - XML decls
- David Orchard:
- Wrote proposal
- Done

5. Status reports

-- Evaluation of Primer draft
- Nilo:
- Status: put out draft 3-4 weeks ago
- TOC is main focus of draft
- Examples were taken from parts 1 & 2
- Paul Denning/Highland provided new examples - had editorials
- Should we make up new examples?
- Comments received:
- John Ibbotson: include usage scenarios?
- Jean-Jacques: would prefer a more gradual approach to SOAP concepts
- Include advanced uses of SOAP
- Suggests we should go thru primer in detail
- What should we do with the samples? Create new ones or use the ones from
parts 1 and 2?
- Noah:
- +1 to notion that primer should have a gradual approach.
- It is almost too close to the spec.
- Primer should include a simple usage scenarios.
- Would prefer if it showed simple features first.
- Marwan:
- Overall likes it
- Would like primer to show what SOAP's value is.
- David: Perhaps an intro paragraph would help show such value?
- Marwan: yes
- Chris: Notational convention section - does it apply?
- David: Summary of comments
- needs a more gradual introduction to concepts
- needs more of a justification
- Marwan: these are different thoughts, and can probably be attained independently
- Nilo: Perhaps I started with the more complex issues too soon.
Maybe a more gradual approach would help people's concerns.
- David: Proposal: look into ways of providing a ramp up in complexity and
communicate them back to the group. Talk with Marwan
about some "motivation" text.
- Marwan: +1 and will help
- Nilo: should this discussion take place dist-app?
- David: Yes. To W3C staff: Include pointer to the Primer on the public page + a mail
telling dist-app about it.
-- Usage Scenarios
- John Ibbotson:
- Draft scenario was sent out to WG mailing list
- Sent a note to Nilo regarding usage scenarios/primer examples positioning
- Nilo: Sees a problem with combining Primer + usage scenarios.
Usage scenario formats (AM model diagrams) are too obscure for target
audience.
- Proposal:
- We should continue scenario work for internal work using AM
- Work with Nilo to take the scenarios to rework them so they
fit in better with the primer's audience.
- Dug: Good idea
- Nilo: Good idea
- David: Do it. Need to solicit feedback from WG on usage
scenarios. What is their status?
- John: More needs to be documented - new draft by Monday.
- David: WG should review what has been provided so far and provide
John feedback.
- John: There are many ways to implement them, so if there's a
better idea, let me know.
-- ETF
- David: Still attempting to schedule first telcon (will send a schedule email later today), ETF has started compiling list of ETF-related issues
-- Conformance work report
- Hugo: Waiting for Oisin for a list of testable assertions. Will ask for input/contributions from public.
- Paul Cotton: Have you closed the loop with MS yet?
- Hugo: Not yet - waiting for a mailing list to be set-up first.
-- TBTF Task Force
- Stuart: Status:
- Met on Friday
- Discussed Framework doc put out on Thursday
- TBTF mainly supportive
- pro's: framework, rigorous, error codes
- con's: too complex, unclear how to test for comformance
- TBTF will continue on this path and put it out on dist-app
- working with Glen on new drafts
- Stuart+Chris will work on updating framework text
- MEP needs more work
- Other bindings might be coming soon
- David asked for discussion from WG
- Encouraged WG at large to provide feedback
- Henrik: Expressed concern about the feasability/robustness of the HTTP binding
- Chris: Is it too robust or not robust enough?
- Henrik: Not enough
- Chris: Talk about other bindings - but who's gonna do it?
We need stuff we can actually work with?
- Paul Cotton: What is the TF asking? They don't have consensus but
they're asking for the WG to do work? When are we going
to decide that the TF has done their job?
- Noah: TF has tried to do the right thing - balancing all input.
Presentation could be improved but overall TF likes the
direction.
Being presented to WG to know if they're WAY off base.
- David: TF put this forward as a "here's where we're at" some feedback
is invited.
TF knows it has more work to do.
Based on feedback TF knows it needs another instance of a binding.
This is not a "formal" request for evaluation, just an
informal checkpoint.
Discussion still wasn't made as to whether to distribute it
more widely.
- Henrik: Shouldn't this discussion happen on dist-app?
- David: Yes - ultimately but decision has not been made yet.
Distinction between WG and dist-app mailing list is still being made.
- Glen: Move conversation to dist-app ASAP as soon as it is presentable.
- Paul: When are we going to adopt this as the solution for doing a
binding? Can we really leave it open - waiting for feedback.
- David: yes.
- Paul: This is not wise it might lead to an irreversible decision.
I don't want to set the precedence set to have the TF make
decisions for the WG. WG should vote if this is "the" draft
before we go public.
- Noah: We agreed to do our work in public so why is this an issue?
- Paul: We're agreeing. Order of decision making is TF then WG.
WG needs to decide before we go public.
- David: So, is the WG ok with making it public and continuing discussion
on dist-app?
- Stuart: It would hurt if people undermined the solution in public.
- David: I believe we have general consensus on the solution in the WG.
- Paul Denning: I think it is ready to go if we fill-in placeholders.
- Paul Cotton: To be clear - if this goes out (on dist-app) MS will argue against it.
- Henrik: 2 docs - Binding framework - on right track
- HTTP binding - on wrong track
- Hugo: We don't need consensus to publish drafts or to send e-mails
- Paul Cotton: We need consensus that we need to publish
- Chris: We're not publishing - we're just putting it on the mailing list
- Paul Cotton: Understood - I was just quoting Hugo
- Hugo: It's just an e-mail
- David: Statement for confirmation: If this is put on dist-app, MS will argue against
its direction.
- Paul Cotton: Yes, we're going to disagree with the proposal.
We need to make sure the decision to put out the doc
is a consensus decision.
- Noah: Consensus is nice but not needed. TF is self selected and
consensus is not needed within TF or even WG. Public input
would be good.
- David: Is WG ok with making it public?
- Paul Cotton: Iam Ok with making it public now people know we're going to
argue strongly against it.
- David: Action: We'll make it public.

6. XML Document Type

Noah recently sent out a suggestion [4] that the ETF (or similar) create
an encoding type to represent XML documents for the purpose of carrying
XML documents inside SOAP messages. The chair considers this proposal is
OK with regard our charter, however its potential impact on our schedule
is a major concern. The chair proposes choosing between one of the
following options:
A. discard the proposal
B. start a list of "next SOAP version" items, and add this proposal
to that list
B.1 add "SOAP with Attachments" to that list
C. task a couple of people to size the likely time/person cost of
pursuing the proposal
D. pursue the proposal
- David: There has been some discussion, e.g. What is the relationship with
SOAP+Attachements.
A major concern is the impact on schedule
WG: how should we proceed?
- Noah: Friendly ammendment:
There is a need for something like this.
We do not have consensus yet.
Recommends: postpone it/back-burner it
Interested by the S+A solution.
Should we get ourselves together about the fundamental model
of the SOAP envelope? Is it just the ENV or can it include
other (external) things (like attachments).
- David: So you are suggesting another option ("E") which is to start a discussion thread about the nature of a SOAP message and it's relation to stuff outside it.
- Henrik: We had this discussion a long time ago.
We decided this is an XML protocol and we're not going to
deal with other things like binary data, they should be
solved for XML in general not just for SOAP.
- David: It seems like there is enough meat for a discussion. Should
we even consider discussing it?
- Noah: It is OK to say S+A is a solution, but then it's not a SOAP solution.
- Paul Cotton: What we're really talking about is embedding an XML doc
inside an XML doc - and this might not be the right
WG to solve this problem.
- David Fallside: Perhaps this goes to some other W3C (XML) WG issue list?
- David Orchard: XML Packaging WG was started but never took off. Maybe there?
- Hugo: Several attempts to have packaging mailing list/WG's - but not
enough real interest. Next step should be to signal to the
XML coordination group that we had the discussion and realized
it's not our role.
- David Orchard: Now we have clear requirements.
- David: Sounds like suggestion is postpone and put issue someplace else.
B - postpone and put on some other XML WGs mailing list,
E - learn from the mailing list discussion
Is the WG ready to decide?
- Noah: let's vote
- Asir: This problem is an XML doc in an application defined structure.
Please clarify.
- Noah: Document management scenario.
Just want to be able to put an XML doc in a header.
- David Fallside: Are we OK with the list of options?
- David Orchard: ok
- Hugo: ok
- David: straw poll - non-binding
A: 0
B: 21
C: 0
D: 0
E: 2
Chair judges that the will of the WG is "B". In that case we need someone to start a thread to discuss where to put the proposal.
- Noah: Will do it.
- Paul Cotton: Will help on first draft.

8. Issue 140, identification of self as anon/default actor

- David: Large amount of email/list traffic on this. What's the current state of this and what's the summary of the discussion?
- Stuart: In fact, a new thread was started with same Subject line.
Issue 140: SOAP spec has nothing to say about how an actor determines he is the default actor. Some resolution text has been proposed.
Jacek liked the wording
Chris F: +1'd it.
Noah offered new wording - which Stuart is ok with it.
- David: What are the final set of words?
- Stuart: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0053.html
Spec's discussion of actor is in section 2 and 4
- David: Proposal: sec 2 - include Noah's text?
- Henrik: Both proposal text (noah's and stuarts) are ok.
Discussion went into "how" an actor is determined which he has some concern about.
- Stuart: That is a different issue
- Noah: Accept text, table other discussion("how") until later.
- David: Accept text?
- Dug: as it is in the note?
- David: yes - WG vote on text for sec 2?
- Henrik: Has some editorial question - perhaps?
scratch "possibly empty"
- Noah: ok
- David: Propose the email text without the "possibly empty" phrase.
WG accepts proposalwithout comment or dissent
- David: Directs editors to make the change to the spec text. Asks whether there should be a new issue?
- Noah: yes
Hugo will add a new issue
Stuart will respond to himself (and to "xmlp-comments") with a resolution on 140